Ranking calculation

[DeletedUser9614]

The majority of points that can be gained indefinitely (buildings are not because of space limitation) are points for battles and coins collections. Both require input of the players, and that is logical. However, I think there should be another area of the game that could be calculated into player score - resources. To my knowledge (I might be wrong) they are insignificant (if any) factor in the calculation of the ranking.

For example, we have two players. Both players completed the research. They are maxed out on buildings. So, that is not a factor in their score difference. The first player fought 5000 battles and lets say collected 50,000,000 coins/supplies total throughout the game. The second player did not fought that much. He fought 4000 battles, and collected 40,000,000 coins/supplies. However, the second player like to trade and produced 20,000 resources up to this point. He was using large part of his land for production. While, first player just had enough resources to finish the game with few resources left over. He maximized his army and income.

As of today, the score of the first player would be much higher. I would argue that they are pretty even.

Lets see what do you think

 

[DeletedUser7719]

I always thought the traders didn't care about competition.

 

[DeletedUser9614]

Shouldn't that be a part of competition?
If you make trading not a competition, then most likely that is the case.

 

[DeletedUser]

I think that Goods production getting a ranking conversion would be nice yeah.

Trading: No.
This can be 'abused' or influenced by just trading back and forth with a friend.
Let's say CA Good trades would give you the most points, 2 friends could simply trade large amounts of CA goods (like 200 to make sure almost no one takes that trade) between each other.
This would not only be done by traders, but also fighters to boost their ranking points. That influence would also create an even bigger gap between new and advanced players, and active and inactive players.

For productions itself, however, I think this is a nice idea. Since 'farmers' practically have no way to gain points the same way 'fighters' do.
Ofcourse Fighters can have production buildings too the same way as Farmers can do battles, but at a certain point they need to choose between production or barracks due to space and population. Fighters will choose barracks, farmers will choose production, thus balancing it out.

- L

 

[DeletedUser]

For productions itself, however, I think this is a nice idea. Since 'farmers' practically have no way to gain points the same way 'fighters' do.
Ofcourse Fighters can have production buildings too the same way as Farmers can do battles, but at a certain point they need to choose between production or barracks due to space and population. Fighters will choose barracks, farmers will choose production, thus balancing it out.
- L

That would decrease the importance of fighting all together. If you fight only for the ranking why bother spending 1, 2, even 3 hours per day to fight your neighbours when you can simply fill your village with production buildings and check them once every hour or less. Fighters spend a lot more time in the game than farmers whether they fight for ranks or they fight for pleasure like in my case.

 

[DeletedUser653]

Its completely pointless to use battles to measure skill or progress as these do not take into account if you won or lost (or even just retreated!).

Medals used to be the real way of seeing who was good at PVP but this is completely corrupted now by GB medals which arrive quicker then you can win via PVP towers. You only have to look at the medal tower now and you can see players in the top 20 with less then 100 battles but they have lots of GB's!

So we are really losing the direction of the game for players who enjoyed the PVP side of things and the proposal for ratings to use resources is yet another move to the game "Forgeof'SIM'Empires" where one of the main advertised parts of the game will no longer have any meaning! So my vote is no, but I would agree to a complete review of the ranking process.

 

[DeletedUser]

That would decrease the importance of fighting all together. If you fight only for the ranking why bother spending 1, 2, even 3 hours per day to fight your neighbours when you can simply fill your village with production buildings and check them once every hour or less. Fighters spend a lot more time in the game than farmers whether they fight for ranks or they fight for pleasure like in my case.

In my opinion the importance of fighting is too big to start with. Despite ranking being nothing but a scoreboard, most people do look at it as if it's something of significance.
Even Farmers can be competitive players. They currently can only compete by.. collecting coins and supplies.
Fighting already gives a drastically big amount of converted town ranking, so what's wrong with production buildings getting some too? I'm speaking of Goods production though, so people can't check it "once every hour or less".

As for fighters spending a lot more time in the game than farmers, well, that's not entirely true. I've considered myself more of a farmer when advancing through the Ages, but I was active in the game a lot more than a casual player. Just because farmers don't battle, doesn't mean they're less active or online.

I sincerely think that with the production times of Goods Buildings, their required space and population, Fighters really have little to fear in regards to seeing Farmers as competition if they're active.
But at least it will give farmers some satisfaction too in being rewarded for supplying their guilds, neighbourhoods and friends with goods in order for progression. Trade goods are mandatory to advance in the game, so some converted ranking should be due..

But that's a Farmer's opinion.

- L

 

[DeletedUser9614]

Wallachian, and I think that fighting should have the most significant factor in the ranking. I am not arguing that.
But other factors should be as well also to diversify game (maybe to lesser extent but still significant).
If there is one way to win the game, it is not usually fun. However, if there is complexity to it, then it is usually more fun because you have to search for the right combination.

 

[DeletedUser]

Lodroth you say that farmers can invest as much time as fighters. I disagree. You seems to omit the fact that fighters spend time collecting coins and supplies just as well and not just fighting. The only difference is that a farmer has maybe 50% more suppliers and houses than a fighter. So by collecting all that surplus I doubt it adds more than 10 to 15 minutes per day than a guy who has some less buildings. And to that add 1h-3h daily spent fighting and do the math. Just do a round of attacks in your neighbourhood and see for yourself.
Anyway Im not trying to convert you to how I see things. Just saying that in case the importance of fighting decreases the number of farmers will increase. Some fighters will become farmers while others will look for a more challenging game. The only ones who will remain fighters are those who play the game mainly for the PvP and even that becomes tedious after a while fighting same people day after day.

However what can be done in this case to increase farmer`s interest is simply add some new rankings, like whoever farms the biggest amount of coins, etc.

 

[DeletedUser]

And to that add 1h-3h daily spent fighting and do the math. Just do a round of attacks in your neighbourhood and see for yourself.

Actually if you instead of attacking polish / motivate your neighbourhood (and read the profile text to see what they want + find the best bulding to suit their wishes, you can spend quite some time on it aswell Maybe not as much but a lot.

I do agree that PVPers should get the rewards for the hard work they put in, but as a peaceful player I feel a bit silly sitting in ranking with people an age or two below me.. And Im online quite a lot Maybe polishing and motivating should give some points *ponder*

Ideally I would see a global ranking that can be competed in by everyone, and a separate PVP ranking that takes into accoutn only points gained from battles, some kind of World Champion score board

~Mutzena~

 

[DeletedUser]

Mutzena it takes 20 minutes to polish/motivate a guild of 80 taking in account what they want. Still that doesnt make for the amount of time youd spend fighting. By quite a lot...

 

[DeletedUser]

Mutzena it takes 20 minutes to polish/motivate a guild of 80 taking in account what they want. Still that doesnt make for the amount of time youd spend fighting. By quite a lot...

I agree, I did say it doesn't take as much time But it takes some (I take ~40 minutes to do the hood, guild is faster)
And it is exactly why I suggested that the people who do put the time and effort in to battle, would have their own World Championship PVP only scoreboard to really see the fruits of their labour.

~Mutzena~

 

[DeletedUser9614]

Yea, the PvP ranking could be separate as medals are. However, "world ranking" should include resources, coins, supplies, polishing/motivating, PvP, medals, buildings, expansions, map exploration, technology and several other factors to be more complete.

There is no argument that PvP should be the main factor. This is the fact. However, other factors that are ignored should have some importance.

 

[DeletedUser7719]

How about 300 battle points equal one town/world rank point?

 

[DeletedUser]

I feel that forge point usage should also affect score. So if you buy a lot of forge points, that would then boost your score to some extent.